(PC) Brady v. Jones ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK BRADY, No. 2:21-cv-0489 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee1 proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has 18 requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 38. In support of the motion, plaintiff states in part 19 that the case is complex; that he has limited knowledge of the law; that his housing situation is 20 dire, and that he is currently locked up in administrative segregation with very limited access to 21 the prison law library. Id. at 1-4. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 25 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 26 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 1 Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when he filed the instant action (see ECF No. 1 at 1), and is 28 currently incarcerated at California State Prison – Sacramento (see ECF No. 37). ] The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiffs 2 || likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 3 || light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 4 | 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 5 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 6 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 7 || counsel. Furthermore, to date, plaintiff has filed documents in this case which indicate that he has 8 | asufficient enough understanding of the issues in it to continue to manage it adequately as a pro 9 || se litigant. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 6, 14, 16, 26 (plaintiffs filing of preliminary injunction motion; 10 || extension of time request; first amended complaint, and appeal to Ninth Circuit, respectively). 11 || Therefore, in the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 13 || counsel (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. 14 | DATED: July 19, 2023 Hthren— Llane I5 ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28